It somewhat fits a thought I've had at times about the 50,000 foot view of the pursuit of this mystery: the 'chase' itself, as done by a number of parties with different approaches, becomes an interesting story itself.

This is a thoughtful offering with somewhat that very perspective. The author provides gentle insight into the thinking many probably have in approaching the mystery.

Part of the greater mystery is that such passions are still alive about Earhart's disappearance fully 77 years later. Good read.

My opinion: I am a fan of the application of logic and the puzzle-solving approach ... with the explicit assumptions employed, it presents a compelling picture of one possible outcome.

Ultimately, however, the assumptions are key. A near-constant headwind over hundreds of miles, assumed wind speeds and direction after last celestial fix, for alternative #2 a deliberate north-side offset arrival to the advanced LOP with no visibility issues near Howland, for alternative #1 no visibility issues near Howland, and most importantly for alternative #3 (the completing puzzle piece, according to the site) there is an assumption that Earhart concluded that Noonan erred in his navigation by a minimum of 62 nautical miles (along with corresponding assumptions about visibility), i.e. at least 13.6 degrees of error from last celestial fix, and that she believed this error occurred to the south to miss an intended (and assumed) north offset and that there was either no resistance from Noonan to her conclusion or that she overrode his protests to the contrary and decided to fly off to the north anyway until all fuel was expended.

As Mr. Lange said, it is interesting but does not help to solve the mystery. That requires either the plane or an "any idiot artifact."

I know I'm not keen to contribute financially to any proposed effort to search the sea floor 234-334 miles north of Howland on a heading of 337 degrees based on those assumptions, not to mention the compelling evidence compiled in support of the Niku hypothesis. But I would be thrilled if someone else did.

Interesting thoughts, Nathan - and although I have to admit a fair bias toward 'navigation' error that puts Gardner (Niku) in the relative crosshairs (likely by accident, not design) I remain fascinated by the various navigational possibilities.

Logic and puzzle solving are essentials, of course. Best also I think to look at the simplest and most likely scenarios - the more linkage that gets piled on, the less likely success in proving the null, etc.

Maybe that is why I tend to gaze at dry land (coral) more than open sea: on one hand, the open sea is dreadfully simple - it is HUGE, and the gut screams that they simply never found land and piled in, out of gas; on the other, crews of land planes tend to navigate with land in mind and wish not to ditch, and the size of the ocean drives the mind toward alternate land possibilities.

Where are the odds on all that? In my mind, such as it is, 'land' is a high draw; open sea is to be shunned. For argument's sake though, consider the size of the sea and assume for a moment that's where they went: your point is apt - where then to look? One has to mindfully 'channel' Noonan's thinking to sort that one out, and I personally believe (subject to being wrong, of course...) that a large set of variables lie there - it's not a matter of flying out to the third white cap and turning left 90 degrees and holding for 12 minutes.

More seriously, I can appreciate the search patterns that have been postulated, but less so than I can the employment of the LOP and eventual outcome of land found in the Phoenix group. We at least do have the tangible 'on the line' last call, as cryptic as it is.

Ultimately, however, the assumptions are key. A near-constant headwind over hundreds of miles, assumed wind speeds and direction after last celestial fix, for alternative #2 a deliberate north-side offset arrival to the advanced LOP with no visibility issues near Howland, for alternative #1 no visibility issues near Howland, and most importantly for alternative #3 (the completing puzzle piece, according to the site) there is an assumption that Earhart concluded that Noonan erred in his navigation by a minimum of 62 nautical miles (along with corresponding assumptions about visibility), i.e. at least 13.6 degrees of error from last celestial fix, and that she believed this error occurred to the south to miss an intended (and assumed) north offset and that there was either no resistance from Noonan to her conclusion or that she overrode his protests to the contrary and decided to fly off to the north anyway until all fuel was expended.

Now take this scenario and mirror image it, with an intentional offset to the south, turning NW towards Howland, AE overriding Noonan and reversing to the SE and instead of flying off over open water into oblivion, low and behold, finding Niku.....

Now take this scenario and mirror image it, with an intentional offset to the south, turning NW towards Howland, AE overriding Noonan and reversing to the SE and instead of flying off over open water into oblivion, low and behold, finding Niku.....

Andrew

Exactly right Andrew. And again, taking alternative #3 from which the site author claims is the puzzle solver, we get a set of assumptions that contradict the existing explicit assumptions...

IF we accept that there were no visibility issues in the area AND that after turning on 157, Earhart eventually concluded that Noonan erred in his navigation by at least 62 miles to the south, she would have had a verfication of that assumption in her immediate visible vicinity ... Baker Island.

Earhart: "Fred, you were wrong. We didn't come in north of Howland, we came in south. And since we've flown 11 minutes on 157 without seeing it, I'm turning around."

Noonan: "Amelia, if what you say is true, then Baker should be ... dead ahead/right below/right behind ... us, in visible range. If it isn't, you need to keep flying on 157."

In this case, to accept being outside of visible range of Baker means believing Noonan erred by at least 82 miles, or nearly 18 degrees over 256 miles from the world's best aeronautical navigator. And even if she did in fact believe this and followed the course of action in the puzzle solver, you must then assume that neither Fred nor Amelia cared that neither Baker nor Howland appeared in sight after a turn back on 337 and flew for x amount of time.

As Mr. Lange said, it is interesting but does not help to solve the mystery. That requires either the plane or an "any idiot artifact."

Just so - which is why we all need to kick in what we can for Niku VIII. The Conroy Anomaly looks like TIGHAR's best bet yet for the Any Idiot Artifact. The Patch, AKA 2-2-V-1, can never be that artifact, unfortunately. But, to me, it is a much, much more credible piece of the puzzle than any of this gentleman's assumptions.

Three years later, I am delighted to discover these comments by members of TIGHAR about the ‘model’ summarized on the solution page of WHICH WAY, AMELIA? Inasmuch as “a model is an ordered set of assumptions,” it is always more appropriate to challenge those assumptions one by one than the conclusions derived from them. It seems doubtful to me that mine deserve to be pejorated as a ‘house of cards’.

Key Assumption: The heading taken from the Last Celestial Fix, which applies 16 degrees of intentional offset for the Landfall Navigating procedure, was toward the NORTH of the direct course of 083 degrees to Howland.

Fred Noonan’s decision was hardly a coin-flip. Interception of the 157-337 LOP was 10 miles closer than the on-course distance to Howland – and closer still to the interception resulting from any equivalent offset angle to the south. Then too, the turn onto final is nominally 157-67=90 degrees versus 360-337+99=122 degrees, as would be called for in the ‘Niku hypothesis’. Either way, the subsequent course reversal by Amelia Earhart seems probable based on Atasca’s last radio reception. By the way, the southern dogleg puts the Electra’s cockpit more than 100 miles closer to Nikumaroro. Hmm.

Most of the variables in the model (speeds, fuel consumption, navigating errors) are technically derived in the ten puzzle/solution entries, with individual assumptions made explicit. Members of TIGHAR are invited to review those entries and especially to ‘perturb’ the assumptions individually. Depending on the resulting conclusion, I shall be pleased to take a TIGHAR excursion to the Equatorial Pacific (assuming I win the French lottery).

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.